I’m intrigued by Japan’s “pivot” on cultural issues–strengthening women positions and allowing for diversification goes against what Japan’s society has protected. I’m interested to see how this plays out in the next election… or how long Abe will be allowed to stay in office.

On 3 Sep, Abe held a meeting with his cabinet members. He had replaced six of his 18 cabinet members, and five of these were women: Midori MATSUSHIMA (松島みどり氏) Sanae TAKAICHI (高市早苗氏) Yuko OBUCHI (小渕優子氏) Eriko YAMATANI (山谷えり子氏) Haruko ARIMURA (有村治子氏)

This meeting was where he displayed his new policies:1) Tohoku Rebuilding While rebuilding has constantly taken place since the 3/11 Earthquake/Tsunami, there are still places left devastated by the tsunamis. It makes sense this should be at the forefront for his national priorities.

2) Deflation As seen through his successful Abenomics policies, he is continuing the trend to bring Japan out of its economic rut that has existed since the popping of the Japanese economic bubble.

3) Rural economies Also after 3/11, the rural sector has become stronger in its resistance to Tokyo’s national policies. To protect onsens and ecosystems, the rural areas are more resistance to wind generators and solar panels. This could be Abe’s way of attempting to appease those who feel slighted by being forced to do what Tokyo hands down as decided issues.

4) Empowering Women Women, Peace, and Security (WPS)is a priority even in the United States–see the US National Action Plan on WPS (Dec 2011). Giant corporate businesses have shown that the more diverse of a work force you have, the more successful the business becomes (the more money it makes). Abe is attempting to create a face for this at well within Japan, even if it might anger (male) allies who believed it was their turn for the job.

5) Diversification through Education Possibly due to Japan’s population decrease and the need for increase foreign workers, Abe seems to be pushing for an acceptance of diversity through the school systems. This would also seem to encourage that upper-class and lower-class people should be respected members of society as well.

6) Social Infrastructure 3/11 has also required internal security policies change, especially against natural disasters. Abe is hoping to build infrastructure to prevent and mitigate future disasters to create a “sense of security” for the population.

7) Diplomacy/National Security With China and North Korea still being aggressors in the region, Japan acknowledges the requirement for external security to be strengthened; however, they need to balance diplomacy requirements to ensure peace and world order are maintained in the region.

(photo credit goes to me… I took this photo 🙂 )
Thursday, 15 May, was a great milestone victory for Japan; they are moving forward with collective self defense–which means (among other things) that if an American vessel and Japanese vessel are patrolling together and only the American vessel comes under fire, both vessels would be able to “collectively” defend each other. As it has been in the past, Japan’s interpretation of the American-imposed constitution would have forbidden such action. However, China (mostly) and South Korea are voicing concerns over Japan’s reversion to its militant past. This is just China’s way of stirring up nationalism using hatred of an old enemy through asinine propaganda.

But why is this even an issue? Why was the Empire of Japan treated differently than the Third Reich? Germany who had started two world wars and conducted the mass genocide of the Jewish people with the Holocaust… Japan fought regional wars (China and Russia) but then in 1931 they decided to expand further into China and after criticism, embargoes and threats from the United States eventually convinced Japan they had no other course of action and joined the world war with the attack on Pearl Harbor.

At the end of the war, Germany was seen as an immediate investment as a “speed bump” between the a Soviet Union and the European Nation states; but Japan… The first Asian country to stand toe-to-toe and best many (if not most) of the western countries… With no immediate threat, it appears they “needed to be taught a lesson”. So while both Japan and Germany have “peaceful” constitutions, only Japan was forced to receive the ‘shall not possess war-making capabilities’ that has restricted her military to this day. However, during the Korean War (or also interpreted as the fight against the spread of communism), the US realized having a crippled japan wouldn’t be helpful against the soviets and modified the interpretation if the constitution, giving us the Japan Self Defense Forces (JSDF) of today.

As the JSDF regain their original composure, hopefully too they can be re-instated as a full military… Ready to take on any foe that may try to challenge Japan’s freedoms, way of life, or territorial integrity.

…This is in response to a comment I received on my Yasukuni blog / article (My blog explains my article). The comment I received was:

Instead of burying my response in the comment section of an older post…and I figured my response would make a decent blog (as I’ve had to justify my position numerous times and feel this is a good way to let everyone read it without having to retype my response every time)… I decided to post it. So please read:

Dear Esther:

First of all, I want to thank you for your response. While I don’t’ agree with what you wrote, I am grateful for the opportunity to try and understand where you’re coming from and provide you with a response—defending why I wrote the piece the way I did.

I never said “it” (I’m assuming you mean praying at the shrine?) doesn’t cause pain to other countries. My argument was that other countries don’t acknowledge why the Japanese pray at Yasukuni. From articles I’ve read, many seem to say “they feel” it supports Japanese militarism and their imperial past… which I show is not the case.

Japan, among other countries, committed atrocities (that were military tribunals held against all offenders, more probably would have been labeled war criminals as well). You are incorrect; however. The Japanese history books used in schools continually state “Japan was bad” during the Pacific War. Furthermore, with regards to the “comfort women”, Japan has admitted and apologized many times. Please let me know the reference you’re using to show Japan hasn’t admitted or apologized, I would be curious to check it out.

As I state in my article, the Shrine is not to Hirohito and Tojo and the Kenpei-tai (憲兵隊); The Shokonsha (what is now known as the Yasukuni Shrine) was founded in 1869; not at the end of World War II/the Pacific War. Had it been created at the end of WWII and the war criminals been the sole spirits interred there, I would fully agree with you that the shrine would not be an acceptable place for Politicians (or anyone really, except maybe family) to pray for the well-being of the departed. So I don’t understand your comparison to a shrine that was founded ~60 years before the start of the Pacific War (if using 1931 as the start date) to a hypothetical Nazi shrine created sometime after Hitler would have come to power.

Imperial Japan did invade other Asian countries—but not all. Thailand was not invaded. Technically you could argue that the “asian countries” didn’t even exist; as they had already been invaded by Western powers. French Indochina (Vietnam, etc), Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), British India (Pakistan, etc), even China had lost territory through conflicts with Western nations.

I’m not a western history buff, but I believe Hitler’s conquest was similar to Napoleon’s—which was to create a “unified Europe.” However, Hitler also decided that the extermination of Jews was a necessity. On the contrary, Japan did not want to exterminate the Chinese. I fully admit they terrorized the Chinese, conducted experiments on them and other heinous acts… but an interesting fact is many Japanese refused to hand over Jewish people to the Nazi army—even though they (Japan/Korea and Germany/Austria) were allies.

I do know what “gaijin” (外人) means… “foreigner”, or “outside person.” However, I am confused by your reference. You use past tense to describe your boyfriend’s opinions about Japan (being similar to mine). Did they change, are they the same?

I must correct you again… I have studied Asian history: from Chinese Emperors, to Japanese Emperors, to the movement of the Greater and Lesser Vehicles of Buddhism… I have also read about China’s expansion, the fate of the Korean Kingdoms, the plight of the Philippines.

Let me ask you a question in response. Had Japan not attacked and taken the colonies from the Western powers… would the Asian countries that exist today, actually exist? Or remain as colonies? Do I believe Japan wanted to “liberate” the countries? No. Instead, I believe they wanted to liberate the countries FROM the Western powers, so that they would fall in line with Japan (similar to the Americans “freeing” the Philippines from the Spanish, only to conquer it for themselves).

And I was using Thanksgiving to show that there are many views regarding what people consider “history”. And for this reason, people need to read different sources of material to better understand and get a clearer picture of what “history” is. It shouldn’t be Victor’s History; it should be the closest representation of fact of what occurred.

In the latest “tit for tat” exchange, the Philippines responded in kind after China had stated it would defend it’s territory without compromise–and this was including those areas currently contested in or out of court between China and other nations.

What did Manila say exactly? That “the Philippines was basing its position on the principles of international law” and also “[had] the right to defend every inch of its territory.”

So, now we have two countries that will defend their country (without compromise) … while increasing military units in the area. China has recently sprayed fisherman with water cannons and has warned off other vessels carrying construction materials in the disputed territory. As the Philippines have purchased more frigates and are now moving their western defense naval assets closer to the area… how soon until something tragic occurs? And who will cause it? Thoughts?

On this day in 1974, World War 2 finally ended for Second Lieutenant ONODA Hirou, a Japanese Imperial Army Officer in Lubang, Philippines. After engaging guerrilla warfare with the sole order of ‘you are to continue fighting until we come back’ he continued to fight until given an order to surrender by his still living, superior officer.

He died January 16, 2014… I wonder if he was enshrined at Yasukuni for his service.

I would do injustice if I were to summarize the events of this wartime soldier. He wrote a book and instead of summarizing it like I normally do. Sells for about $15 for a paperback at a bookstore.

Yi WANG, the Chinese Foreign Minister, kept emphasizing “history and territory” as the main reasons why China would not budget with Japan or the Southeast Asian countries with which it has territorial disputes with.

An interesting note was that in the article, WANG is quoted as saying they will “properly handle by peaceful means on this basis of respecting historical facts and international law.” Which clearly goes against his early quote of “no room for compromise”.

So, what I take WANG’s quote to mean is that based on ‘Chinese interpretation of their historical facts’ they will continue to ‘peacefully negotiate’ (with water cannons and clear violations of a nation’s waters by having frigates and other vessels pass through the area) until the matter is resolved.

The article then speaks about China’s view on the the situation in North Korea and the Six Party talks; but it seems pure rhetoric: “Denuclearize North Korea and re-start the six-party talks” … and when that doesn’t work, like it hasn’t in the past. What will China do? Or is China doing what it can internationally to make the world think they are helping to “fix” North Korea, but secretly enjoying their existence — by keeping the focus (human rights and otherwise) off of China?

The Imperial Army of the Japanese, along with the “Burma Independence Army” (BIA), which contained thousands of nationalists and the Thirty Comrades–the predecessor to the Burmese army, captured Rangoon on this day in 1942; ABDA (American, British, Dutch, Australian Command) and Chinese coalition forces retreated to the north and eventually regrouped in India. The Thirty Comrades had sought military training from the Japanese to fight for their independence from Britain, before Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. The BIA was formally created on December 26, 1941.

The Japanese focus was to capture Rangoon, both the capital and major seaport in the region–to better defend any gains made in Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. An interesting side note is that Japan did not have to fight Thailand, as they had a treaty with them, with allowed Japanese forces to move unhindered. In return, Japan agreed to let the Thais have the Kayah and Shan states of Burma, while Japan controlled the rest.

The ABDA coalition attempted to defend the city; however, they were not ready for war. Even after reinforcements arrived, the Japanese were able to hold off ABDA counterattacks and were able to take the city. This enabled the Japanese to look western, and focus their attention on India.